Nice commentary. Please keep it up!

Ben

From today’s Miami Herald: Get involved. South Florida residents can share their thoughts about changes to state science standards from 5:30pm to 7pm Tuesday at Everglades High, 17100 SW 48th Court, Miramar.

December 25th, 2007

Standing up for the Creator
Kudos to Donna Callaway for standing up to the “scientific establishment” and all those who would try to continue to bully their way into the educational system to further their own ends. Just because Darwin’s theory of evolution is the most widely accepted theory in the scientific community at this time does not make it a fact. It still remains, after more than 150 years, merely an unproven hypothesis and I dare say it shall remain so.
Intelligent Design on the other hand has been the obvious explanation for millions of people for thousands of years, and I might say, not just in the Christian world.
Unfortunately this “scientifically supported” atheism has been the cause of much of the degradation of our society in recent years. If there is no God, then there are no laws of God to follow; then we can do whatever we please to gratify our immediate desires and not have to worry about the consequences. Just look at the way we have raped the Earth, destroyed the family unit, increased our warring mentality in relation to other countries, etc., etc.
How can any thinking individual believe that this vast material nature with all her complexities, her orderly cycles of seasons and the movement of the planets, her great and glorious mountains, rivers, vegetation and all else that is needed to inhabit her surface, just came about by the random combination of some chemicals at some point in time? And that man has similarly “just by chance” “evolved” by “natural selection” from a single-celled amoeba? It is simply preposterous!
Teaching Intelligent Design is actually the only scientific explanation, and is the only one that should be presented in the schools.
Michele Khurana,
Alachua
December 27th, 2007

Confused about evolution
It saddens me to see that many Floridians are still confused about the context of evolution and intelligent design, as described in the Dec. 4 article about proposed changes to Florida’s science standards.
We must educate our children using curriculum that is both accurate and relevant for the challenges they will face as future professionals and leaders. Evolutionary theory provides testable and potentially falsifiable (though thus far highly corroborated) hypotheses about the origin of species and the biological changes we have observed through science over the course of the Earth’s history. It is as real and conclusive as the theory of heliocentrism that correctly places the sun at the center of our solar system.
Biology, genetics, ecology, and other scientific disciplines are supportive of, and dependent upon evolutionary theory. Conversely, the singularity from which our universe (and ultimately all life) began, is beyond the domain of evolution and even science in general.
Intelligent design is neither science, nor theory based. Its core tenet of irreducible complexity can never be falsified as resides beyond the threshold of the observable and testable phenomena upon which science is predicated.
It is critical that we do not confuse the context and educational setting of science and spirituality. When viewed as a debate, science and religion seem subversive, even dangerous to each other. When viewed as separate but complementary spheres of life, they can inform each other and offer a higher level of enlightenment than either can alone.
Albert Einstein captured it best in 1941, when he said, “science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
Hal Knowles,
Gainesville
Blind faith in evolution
The Dec. 15 letter titled, “No place in education for creationism,” is an example of why I am constantly amazed at the misguided attempts of some to promote the “theory of evolution” as undisputable fact. The belief that we came from a clump of “goo” requires more blind faith than the belief that a loving God created the entire universe.
The writer states “objections to evolution aren’t scientifically based.” This statement causes me to wonder why hundreds of respected scientists around the world have conducted extensive research, written thousands of scientific books/articles, and provided conclusive evidence that supports Creationism (see www.creationontheweb.org).
Evolution and Creationism are theories based on assumptions tying together pieces of evidence. Making the statement that one or the other is undisputable fact is not scientifically sound.
Evan Pitts,
Gainesville

December 28th, 2007
Time to update science
Surely it is time we brought the science that is taught in our schools into the 21st century. What is taught now had its origin in the archaic science labs of 1859, 146 years ago.
Back then the scientists could see a cell under a microscope, but it looked like a blob of Jell-O with a dark spot as the nucleus. Let’s bring the science that is taught into the bright light of the scientific facts revealed by modern equipment in the laboratories of today.
Now, with the cell magnified 50,000 times scientists can see an incredible, intricate, Lilliputian world where a typical cell takes 10 million atoms to build; a marvel of engineering that works like machines in a factory.
In his book “Origin of Species.” Charles Darwin wrote, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ exists which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
Stephen Meyer, Ph.D., said, “Explanations from the Steamboat Age are no longer adequate to explain the biological world in the Information Age.”
Sue De Shazo,
Gainesville
December 29th, 2007
Creationism is not science
Michele Khurana (”Standing Up for the Creator,” Dec. 25), suggests that evolution is “merely an unproven hypothesis,” and calls it “scientifically supported atheism.” In fact, science is not necessarily atheist, nor does it require belief in a deity of some kind.
Science uses hypotheses and experiments and tests to confirm or disconfirm these hypotheses, not weighing in on things that are not testable (like, for example, the hypothesis that there is a god).
The writer suggests that “Teaching intelligent design is actually the only scientific explanation, and is the only one that should be presented in the schools.” In fact, several Christians who are also scientists reject intelligent design as unscientific, because it proposes no new testable hypotheses. It merely adds an ad hoc assumption (that there is a designer) to existing scientific evidence.
Her claim that intelligent design has been around for thousands of years is incorrect; the term arose in the 1980s in response to judicial rejection of “creationism” in public schools. The idea that the world was designed is indeed an old one that goes back thousands of years, but so is the notion that the world is devoid of a divine spark.
Our public schools fail to teach our children about how the scientific method works, and what the goals of science are. It is my hope that before people rush to declare intelligent design a scientific theory, they will educate themselves on how theories operate in science.
Lucas Johnston,
Gainesville
December 31st, 2007
Creationists shouldn’t bully their way into classrooms
I was incredulous to read Michele Khurana’s contention (”Standing up for the Creator”, Dec. 25) that it is members of the “scientific establishment” that “continue to bully their way into the educational system to justify their ends.” In fact, the knowledge assembled by the “scientific establishment” has long been central to the curriculum of our educational systems and it is the unsubstantiated beliefs of religious zealots that continue to try to bully their way out of the pulpit and into our classrooms.
I am astounded that there remain today so many willing to disregard irrefutable evidence painstakingly accumulated over the centuries by unrelated disciplines that clearly support the notion that all species are the product of evolutionary change due to natural selection. And this includes humans who, incidentally, are 98 percent identical in their genetic makeup to chimpanzees.
Khurana’s contention that morality cannot exist without religion would come as a shock to the 14 percent of the earth’s population that are non-believers but who somehow manage to behave in a manner indistinguishable from the 33 percent who are Christians or from people of other faiths.
Yes, I firmly believe humans evolved from lower life forms and have plenty of evidence from many disciplines to support that contention. Whether a creative intelligence underlies this evolutionary process is unknowable and, therefore, a matter of faith.
So I will make a deal with the Biblical literalists: If you will quit trying to bully your way into our classrooms, we of the “scientific establishment” will refrain from trying to bully our way into the pulpit to promote evolution, which is, incidentally, not incompatible with the concept of intelligent design.
Don Goodman,
Archer
January 1st, 2008
Science vs. religion
In the Dec. 27 letter, “Blind faith in evolution,” the writer pits the theory of evolution against “the belief that a loving God created the universe.” Maybe both theories are true, but only one belongs in a science class.
Part of the problem is the way we use the word “theory.” In casual conversation it implies speculation. In science, it’s an explanation for something that can be proven or falsified by experimentation and observation. By calling evolution and creationism both “theories,” the writer implies they have equal weight in a science class. They don’t.
Evolution is science. Creationism is a matter of faith. What next? Are we going to water down the theory of relativity or atomic theory because someone doesn’t want to believe the science behind it?
Our kids will be charged with solving a host of problems and competing in a global market. Call or write the state Board of Education (www.fldoe.org/board) and let them know we want them to adopt science standards that give our kids a chance to do just that.
Ken Duffield III,
Gainesville
January 2nd, 2008
The assault on Darwin
In her letter to the editor in the Sun’s Christmas edition, Michele Khurana appears to reveal more about herself than she realizes. In her assault on Darwin’s theory of evolution, which she called “ â€òscientifically supported’ atheism,” Khurana says, “If there is no God, then there are no laws of God to follow; then we can do whatever we please to gratify our immediate desires and not have to worry about the consequences.”
Let’s dispose of Khurana’s first obvious error. Most Darwinians are not atheists. Let’s get to the nub of her argument, that one must fear punishment from God in order to do what is right. Perhaps that is true of Khurana, but I sure hope that is not the reason most believers try do what is right. I hope they strive to be kind and gentle and generous and just “do unto others….” simply because their own hearts and minds and consciences won’t let them do otherwise.
Geoff Pietsch,
Gainesville
Yes, question evolution, it’s just another theory
In “No place in education for Creationism” (Sun Dec. 15) Casey Schmidt conveniently ignores the problem that evolution does not scientifically explain the origins of life or the presence of the millions of diverse forms of life.
Any attempt address the multitude of unanswered questions in the theory of evolution invokes an immediate response that one is trying to teach intelligent design, which is creationism, which is religion, which means God, which is not science and therefore must not be even discussed.
Evolution must be true because there are no other plausible scientific theories which are acceptable to scientists. In other areas of science, wise and honest scientists admit to things they do not yet know or cannot explain.
In evolution this is not done and supporters of evolution just make up another theory or ignore the question; such as Stephen Gould’s concept of punctuated equilibrium to explain the sudden appearance of numerous life forms in the fossil record. This is hardly science.
One should be able to question a theory, which does not explain what it purports to explain without being linked to some “nutcase” who thinks the world began on April 15, 4004 BC at 7:42 a.m.
Allen Meadows,
Gainesville
January 3rd, 2008
Intelligent design isn’t scientific
Christmas Day’s letter “Standing up for the Creator” was a little gem. I love people who throw the term “scientific theory” around like they actually know and understand what the entire concept is all about, and then try to convince us that “Intelligent design” is worthy of equally standing beside Darwin’s Theory of evolution as a legitimate scientific observation to be taught to our next generation of scientists.
I strongly suspect these people slept through basic science classes in high school on how to construct a scientific theory, but at some point in their lives may have read some religious tract which confirms their operational belief system.
The first question I have to ask myself is: Have these people even read Darwin’s book “On the Origin of Species”? Do they even know what a scientific theory is and how it is tested in every day life through direct observation?
Intelligent design is not a testable scientific explanation of our origins or anything else. It should be relegated to the dust heap of history and not taught in our schools as anything which approaches a true scientific theory based in fact and direct observation. Then again, perhaps it should be taught as an example of how not to run a testable scientific examination.
Joseph Messer,
Alachua

No place in education for creationism

Florida’s new science standards finally include the teaching of the most important discovery in biology - evolution. That should help raise Florida’s science standards from the F grade it received.

Unfortunately, these science standards are opposed by State Board of Education member Donna Callaway. She said that evolution “should not be taught to the exclusion of other theories of life,” and she will oppose the standards unless those other theories are taught.

There are no other scientific theories for the origin of life, which implies she wants the religiously inspired creationism/intelligent design (ID) “hypothesis” to be discussed, even though she coyly stated she doesn’t want ID to be taught.

This is part of the subterfuge strategy called “Teach the Controversy,” where science classes don’t explicitly teach ID but point out objections to evolution. Unfortunately, these objections aren’t scientifically based.

To see what happens when board members include pseudoscience and creationism in schools one need look no farther than Kitzmiller v. Dover, where a judge struck down ID as a religious concept and a science stopper and taxpayers got to foot the bill for a high-profile trial.

Callaway is repeating the mistakes of the Dover board members by explicitly mixing her religion with the science when she stated in the Florida Baptist Witness Newspaper, “My hope is that there will be times of prayer throughout Christian homes and churches directed toward this issue…I want God to be part of this.”

It is obvious that she is appealing to an emotional and religious perspective and couldn’t care less about the science. The people of Florida will bear the cost.

Casey Schmidt,
Gainesville

(sarcasm)And they’re doing a bang-up job of that.(/sarcasm)

“When we start thinking we have the right to dictate (through the government) what philosophies should or should not be taught then we’ve lost our way as a democracy.”

I agree. And this is the beauty of letting the marketplace provide schools, as nobody is dictated to, and the schools actually have to constantly improve themselves in order to attract customers (i.e. the parents).

The Centipede: “Also, suggesting that a lack of support for “school choice” means not supporting “democracy” is a strawman. Just to let you know.”

The suggestion that parents would destroy their children’s lives, and that therefore decisions about schools must be made by some sort of ruling caste is incompatible with democracy. Calling it a strawman doesn’t make it so. What would you choose for your own children? Would you rather that I made that decision for you?